On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < [email protected]> wrote:
> From my point of view, what mostly confuses here is the name of the class. > I think it should be RestServerConfiguration, for example. Right now it's > not obvious what this class actually configures. > > Also I just realized that if we remove TCP-based REST server, we will > remove Memcached support. Are we OK with that? I certainly do not want to remove memcached support, but we should call it MemcachedConfiguration then and isolate Memcached properties there. > If yes, we will need only > these properties (they are used by HTTP REST): > > - jettyPath > - restSecretKey > - restPortRange > - restAccessibleFolders > - restExecSvc > - restSvcShutdown > - clientMsgInterceptor > Isn't REST HTTP support handled via Jetty? In that case, are these Jetty configuration properties? Maybe we should call it JettyConfiguration? > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I want to start discussion about client configuration settings in Ignite. > > From what I have seen, it looks like we already have client-based > discovery > > and CLIENT_ONLY cache mode for thick clients. > > > > In my view, we should not need the old thin-client configuration at all, > as > > it supports only a limited subset of the API. If all agree, then > > ClientConnectionConfiguration class should be removed. However, I am > > seeing Jetty configuration properties there which we may still need to > > support HTTP REST requests: > > > > getRestJettyPath() > > getRestSecretKey() > > > > Can someone who developed this piece provide some guidance on how to > > property configure HTTP REST without keeping the whole > > ClientConnectionConfiguration behemoth class? > > > > D > > >
